In 1967, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted experiments regarding the “Small Word” theory—the theory that members of any large social network would be connected to each other through short chains of intermediate acquaintances. His finding that the average length of the resulting acquaintance chains was roughly six people has since been popularized as the “Six Degrees of Separation” phenomenon. The study of social networks has evolved into a thriving field of science, and resulted in even deeper analysis of Milgram's findings. For example, Duncan Watts' book Six Degrees provides a relatively technical study of social networks, and offers a quite detailed bibliography of works in the field. The compelling idea behind social networking theory is that people can theoretically leverage their friends and acquaintances to eventually meet any desired person.
In their daily lives, people routinely operate within their social network to meet new people for a variety of reasons such as:                1. Romantic involvement (dating, physical relationships, marriage, etc.)        2. Friendship        3. Activity partners        4. Professional reasons (career advancement, job-seeking, etc.)        5. Commercial benefit (buying and selling goods and services, developing inter-organizational relationships, etc.)        6. Non-profit and political benefit (“grass-roots” networking in support of political or philanthropic causes.        
The vast majority of marriages, romantic relationships and friendships are developed through social networks. In business, it is not a secret that the difference between failure and success often depends on not “what you know,” but “who you know.”
There are several reasons people prefer meeting new people through social networks: it is more comfortable, it is more efficient, and it is more likely to lead to desirable relationships than other methods.
Interacting through social networks is more comfortable than interacting with strangers, because it reduces the risks of rejection, deception, and even physical danger in some cases. These risks are especially acute when it comes to meeting people for dating. One way to meet people for dating is for one individual to simply approach another individual in a public forum, such as a bar, a park, etc. In an archetypical case, a man might approach a woman to strike up a conversation. Two problems immediately arise. First, the woman is likely to simply reject the man for any number of reasons (involvement in another relationship, for example). Second, without any mutual friend (or friend of friend) to provide information about the man, the woman has little context for knowing how truthful the man's statements about his background, occupation, etc., are.
While the previous example describes a specific, if quite common, form of meeting people, many of the same risks also occur in social interactions where the goal is not dating. When looking for a new friend, developing a business relationship or simply seeking an activity partner, people are adverse to the risks of rejection, deception, and incompatibility.
Generally, it is easy to understand that meeting people through friends or through friends of friends significantly reduces the risks described. If an introduction is made through a mutual acquaintance, social norms all but ensure there will be no immediate outright rejection. Further, an individual is unlikely to engage in deception when there is a third party involved who can confirm or discredit any assertions by that acquaintance.
Another great benefit of interacting through a social network is the enhanced efficiency of the process (from introduction through establishing a relationship) and the higher level of quality in relationships established through social networks.
When two individuals meet through a mutual acquaintance (or series of such acquaintances) several factors are introduced. The two individuals are more likely to be compatible, for the simple reason that their mutual friendships is itself likely to be indicative of shared preferences and interests.
The mutual acquaintance(s) also provides a valuable function in facilitating the development of a relationship. The mutual acquaintance provides an initial matchmaking and/or screening function between the two individuals. For example, the mutual acquaintance can observe shared interests or aspirations (“she would be great for you, you both like skiing so much”). Or the mutual acquaintance can provide valuable information with regard to status—“she's married” or “he's not interested in dating right now”.
The mutual acquaintance can further facilitate development of the relationship. Obviously, the mutual acquaintance can facilitate the introduction—from a simple e-mailed suggestion the two parties meet, to arranging, say, a dinner party to bring the two individuals together.
The mutual acquaintance can also facilitate the flow of information among the individuals. For example, one individual might have questions about the other (“what does he do for a living?”, “what is he like”), the answers to which can determine the probability of compatible interests.
Once the introduction has been made, the mutual acquaintance can facilitate further dialog, and a deepening of the relationship. Either individual may consult the mutual acquaintance with respect to the interest level of the other individual (“what does she think of me”?)
While the benefits of developing relationships through a social network are obvious, the method also has some deficiencies. In particular, there remains a high likelihood that the first and second individuals will never be introduced by the mutual acquaintance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is pure chance. There is also the possibility that the time elapsed before the two individuals meet (from the first moment both have established a personal relationship with the mutual acquaintance) may be longer than desirable.
The failure of two individuals in a social network to form a personal relationship may occur for a variety of reasons. The introduction of two individuals in a social network relies on the enthusiasm, focus, resources and time constraints of the mutual acquaintance.
The mutual acquaintance may simply fail to recognize the potential for a match among people in his/her network. Or, two sequential mutual acquaintances (A knows B, B knows C, and C knows D) may fail to communicate in such a way that they recognize the potential for a match (i.e., between A and D).
Further, the mutual acquaintance may not have the time for introducing the two individuals, or may simply not prioritize facilitating the introduction. Arranging a mutual meeting might involve hosting an event or trying to coordinate three schedules (the two individuals and the mutual acquaintance). When a longer sequence of mutual acquaintances connects two individuals, the problems are only magnified.
Finally, the mutual acquaintance might live in a different location from the two individuals, so facilitating an introduction may be quite impractical. As our world becomes increasingly mobile, this situation only becomes more common.
In short, while social networking is a preferred way for individuals to connect, the method has several inefficiencies as it operates in the “real” world.
Some attempts have been made to use the Internet for “matching” people, but none have been able to harness the clear advantages of social networks.
Several online “matching” sites for dating and friend-making currently operate on the Internet (Match.com, Matchmaker.com, etc.), and several patents have been granted for online matching systems (Sudai, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,950,200; Collins U.S. Pat. No. 5,963,951; Sutcliffe, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,052,122; Collins U.S. Pat. No. 6,061,681; Sutcliffe, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,105; Sutcliffe, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,105).
These services are generally similar in function. They allow users to post profiles and photos, as well as search through the profiles and photos of other users. Communication between users is provided anonymously, since users are identified by pseudonyms. Matching features are provided which match users based on indicated profile criteria about themselves and their desired matches.
These matching services are based on rote screening of criteria, behind walls of anonymity. They do not provide any features for community, collaboration, referral, or reputation. Users cannot participate in these online dating services within the context of the social networks that connect participants, nor leverage their own social network in viewing, selecting, or communicating with other people on these online dating services. None of the previously mentioned advantages of a social network—in particular, the critical function performed by mutual acquaintances—exist in these matching systems.
Other online services offer forums for communication between communities of users. These services include message boards, email lists, chat rooms, personal home pages, and web logs (see, for examples, US patents: Teibel U.S. Pat. No. 6,366,962; and Teibel et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,363,427). Such services exist for both one-to-many and many-to-many communication. These services provide a forum where profiles or messages are viewed by a specific individual, the general public, or the entire membership of a specific defined group.
These types of forums do allow visibility to multiple members of a group (in contrast to the matching services, which are based on one-one anonymous profiles). However, they typically are not based on social networks, but on broad interests. For example, a forum may have as its subject “skiing”. Further, it is not possible with these services to limit visibility of content based on social relationships or distance levels within a social network. Identification is either anonymous or via public disclosure of real names, but depiction of connections between people via social networks is not provided.
Several patents and patent applications (although apparently no inventions in actual use) appear to recognize the value of social networks, and contemplate online systems to exploit them (de l'Etraz et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,138; de l'Etraz et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,324,541; Tomabene 20020023132; and Work 20020059201). These systems generally rely on a company's or an individual's computerized address book, and suggest merging multiple address books to create a social networking tool.
The address book solutions contemplated by de l'Etraz, Tomabene and Work fail to leverage social networks in several fairly significant ways. First, they do not contemplate the nature of the relationship among individuals. They simply assume that the existence of a name in a person's address book denotes a social relationship. In fact, many address books are filled with non-social relationships (e.g. the name of a dry-cleaner). Second, the address book solutions appear to be one-way: they do not allow two individuals in a network to indicate they have a mutual relationship. So for example, an individual may have “John Doe at ACME Corp.” in his address book, but these systems would not be able to confirm whether or not “John Doe” considers himself an acquaintance of the individual. Finally, these address book services fail to leverage many of the benefits of mutual acquaintances, such as referrals and testimonials.
What is needed is a system that allows individuals to replicate the process of developing personal relationships through social networks, using a computer system and database. The system should calculate and display social networks in a way that lets people better manage and exploit their own social networks. The computerized system would let the user benefit from the advantages of social networking, and would further improve the usefulness of the social network by:                a. Increasing the ease of determining mutual interest among parties, and reducing the proportion of the matching burden placed upon the third party        b. Providing two individuals in the system the ability to realize their pathway of acquaintances that connects them, with minimum effort required of the third party        c. Providing the first and second party the ability to explore the potential for mutual interest, without extensive involvement from the third party        d. Reducing the difficulty of making introductions by eliminating or reducing the mutual acquaintance's burden of coordinating schedules, traveling to mutual meeting points, or hosting events to facilitate a meeting.        